Emperor of all Maladies

The Emperor of all Maladies is a book by Siddartha Mukerjee and is the base on a series produced by Ken Burns. It is good on history. But it does not tell the most recent finding on cancer cure and prevention.

Cancer increases with Old Age. This fact is easily understood and prevented by understanding three reasons. First is your ability to make vitamin D in your skin decreases by 75-80% as we age. Second is the old peoples' propensity to stay indoor when they can make vitamin D in their skin which is when the sun is 45˚ from the vertical. Third reason is that cancer requires more time to develop and kill. To prevent and cure nearly all cancers, you need to ingest vitamin D pills.

Siddartha's The Emperor of all Maladies reports on page 22 and 45 that in the early 1900s the major causes of death were typhoid, pneumonia, diarrhea, gastroenteritis , dropsy (edema), cholera, smallpox and plague. Cancer was 9th on the list. The average life expectancy was 48. In the 1950s, public hygiene (clean water and few mosquitoes) and antibiotics eliminated these diseases. We seldom hear of these diseases now except in outbreaks in third world countries. Public hygiene and antibiotics in the 1950s also increased life expectancy to 68 and cancer moved to 2 place. As an example of age related Breast cancer affects 1 in 400 for a 30 year old and increases to 1 in 9 for a 70 year old woman. 100 years ago, most people died of other diseases before getting breast cancer.

This link between Old Age and cancer can be broken. You only need to ingest Vitamin D to get your blood level into the Healthy Range. You can also break the link between Old Age and some other Modern Diseases.

showing that cancers can be prevented/cured if blood level is above 104ng/ml

The rest of this page is my response to Ken Burns/Siddhartha Murkerjee program/book called The Emperor of All Maladies-Biography of Cancer. It is an excellent book on the history of cancer going back 4700 years.That book does NOT mention Vitamin D or DINOMIT in the table of contents, the index or any place in the book. So it does NOT contain the latest information of cellular physiology and prevention/cure of cancer.

Dr Murkerjee quotes on page 391 from Weinberg's and Hanahan's 2000 more recent paper titled The Hallmark of Cancer that "cancer is a manifestation of 6 essential alterations in cell physiology that collectively dictates malignant growth.

    1. Self-sufficiency in growth signal: cancer cells acquire an autonomous drive to profligate.
    2. Insensitivity to growth-inhibitory (anti-growth) Signals: cancer cells inactivate tumor suppression genes.
    3. Evasion of programmed cell death (apoptosis)
    4. Limitless replication potential
    5. Sustained angiogenesis: cancer cells acquire the capacity to draw out their own supply of blood
    6. Tissues invasion and metastasis: cancer cells acquire the capacity to migrate to other organs, invade other tissues and spread"

On that same page, Dr Mukerjee quotes them as saying. "The task now was to connect this causal understanding to cancer's deep biology to the quest for its cure: Some would argue that the search for the origin and treatment of this disease will continue over the next quarter century in much the same manner as it has in the recent past, by adding further layers of complexity to a scientific literature that is already complex, almost beyond measure. But we anticipate otherwise: those researching the cancer problem will be practicing a dramatically different type of science than we have experienced of the past 25 years" Weinberg and Hanahan were right in their prediction about complexity especially as scientific interest in personalized medicine grows based on our genome.

Note that after Weinberg's and Hanahan's paper was published, the discovery of the cell physiology that causes cancer was published in 2007. At a conference at UCSD in 2009, I asked researchers why they recommended only 40-60ng/ml to the Federal government and themedical industry. Research on primitive people who wore few clothes and spent their days in the sun gave rise to 40-60ng/ml. They said that they did NOT have the data to support higher levels. I did not wait for their data. I began ingesting 50,000 IU of Vitamin D everyday in 2009.

Another longer conference of 2 days was held at UCSD in Dec of 2014 organized by GrassRootsHealth which studies VitaminD and its influence on human health. At the end of first day, they put the five speakers/researchers at the front of the audience to answer questions. Carole Baggely asked, "Where do we need to go from here?" I raised my hand and said the they needed to raise their recommendation from 40-60ng/ml to 100-200ng/ml. I then engaged the researchers for about 5 minutes in discussions. One researcher asked me, "So you want to go above the level of primitive people?" I said yes because we know more and we live longer. I said that that Dr Garland had said that we needed blood level above 100ng/ml to eliminate the world of breast and other cancers and that the questioner had shown that there was no toxicity below 200ng/ml. I said anything less than 100ng/ml was risky.

The next morning on the way to seminar, I met Dr Garland who is focused on eliminating breast cancer which requires the highest blood level of Vitamin D. He said that the most interesting thing he heard yesterday was the man that said they needed to raise their recommendation to 100-200ng/ml. At first he was surprised. But after thinking about it, he said that he told another researcher on a phone call the previous night about that comment and they needed to get ready for higher levels. I said that I was the man who made that recommendation. He said that I will win that argument. I am interested in diminishing I said that I had a flyer with that recommendation on it and gave it to him.

Also, the during the second day, several doctors said that they agreed with me including some hospital administrators. They said that they were taking high doses for themselves. I asked why they were NOT treating their patients with the high doses. They said that there was no evidence for high doses. They said after my comments that they might consider treating their patients will high doses of Vitamin D. I asked why Grass Roots Health did not give them cover. They said it was because of inertia in the medical industry. They liked my definition of Risky and Healthy. They said it would communicate very well with their patients.

You can break the link between Old Age and cancer by raising your blood level to above 100ng/ml of 25(OH)D which is the measurement for Vitamin D.